The Pirate Party will host several new WikiLeaks servers. This was agreed during Julian Assange’s visit to Stockholm last weekend, and the Pirate Party is happy to announce that everything has been finalized.

– The contribution of WikiLeaks is tremendously important to the entire world, says Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Pirate Party. We desire to contribute to any effort that increases transparency and accountability of power in the world.

Last week, the Pirate Party challenged the other Swedish parties to assist WikiLeaks in its democratic effort. The Pirate Party has been the first to step up uo the plate, and keeps calling on others to defend freedom of the press in Sweden. As a result, WikiLeaks have commissioned a number of new servers that will be hosted and taken care of by the Pirate Party.

The Pirate Party will provide bandwidth and hosting to WikiLeaks free of charge as part of its political mission.

– This is one of our signatures, says Falkvinge. We don’t just talk. We act. Using our own resources and time, we help change the world rather than pass the buck, commission reports, and avoid responsibility like other politicians.

Wikileaks have been under constant threat of being sabotaged by corrupt or abusive organisations trying to conceal the truth from the public. The Pirate Party’s offer was welcomed by Wikileaks’ spokesman Julian Assange.

– We welcome the help provided by the Pirate Party, says Julian Assange, spokesperson for WikiLeaks. Our organisations share many values and I am looking forward to future ways we can help each other improve the world.

– We hope that the new Parliament will give serious consideration to further strengthening Sweden’s press protection legislation, says Assange. Western democracies are not always as free as one might think, and freedom of the press needs constant vigilance. In particular, we would welcome Sweden copying Iceland’s Modern Media Initiative, something that the Pirate Party also desires.

– We see more opportunities down the road in cooperating with the Pirate Party, says Assange, and look forward to exploring those options.

Holy Cow! The Pirate Party will host several new WikiLeaks servers. This was agreed during Julian Assange’s visit to Stockholm last weekend, and the Pirate Party is happy to announce that everything has been finalized. More photos: http://christianengs…

What credibility does this give wikileaks? – now hosted by a political party that also hosts one of the largest piracy sites, the commercially driven site The Pirate Bay, already convicted for this crime in Sweden.

Are you by any chance referring to the sentence which was passed for actions committed during 2004 which is still under appeal?

As well, the sentence was carried out for TPB’s ”combined solution” – which has since changed. A new trial will most likely have to be held given that the new site is a search engine and nothing more.

As for how much credibility it gives Wikileaks? I would think that should be completely and utterly irrelevant as long as Wikileaks maintains a high standard of fact verification. Which you would know if you’d bothered to look up their mission statement.

Lovely PP, whos integrity are you protecting when WL publish the names of civilians giving information to one side in the Afghanistan war? And WLs lame excuse that they haven’t got the capacity to remove the names themselves only echos false and is no excuse. You all nedd to get things right accordingly to you own ”tear it up, redo and get it right”

Apparently Amnesty and those other human rights groups should read through the material and see for themselves which parts of this conflict seem to be the most dangerous to civilians lives and liberties. I think no one would be surprised to find loads of civilians are being killed weekly by talibans as well as american soldiers, either side seeing them as ”maybe supporting the enemy”.

This is a war, you just don’t ask questions or bother about finding some ”truth” before shooting – so I really doubt that this information in any practical sense could harm these civilians.

Just by being in that conflict they are in the risk of harm by a much higher extent than what wiki leaks will ever be able to put them into.

It’s not a surprise that the Swedish Pirate Party supports publishing of sensitive information when it suits their purposes, integrity and anonomity is only required when it can be used to protect criminals such as pirates.

The Assange blackmailing can be interpreted as that wikileaks is transforming to a commercial site, earning money on ”harm minimization” = blackmailing. The Pirate Bay have also made a similar transition. According to the court sentence, they had at least an 1,2 MSEK income from advertising on their site, from 2005 to 2006, generated by piracy.

Your constant attempts at portraying things incorrectly can be interpreted as borderline (or actual) libel, which has potential legal ramifications.

Your statement ”The Assange blackmailing” is very explicit, false, and made by you with the express purpose of causing harm, thus qualifying as a clear example of libel.

You have thus opened the door for legal action against yourself, and yet again demonstrated very clearly that any alleged respect for the legal system and personal integrity on your behalf is very selective at best, and possibly simply a sham.

I am not surprised, but I must admit that I am disappointed. In some other posts by you you have been able to discuss things rationally, but in this case you apparently fail to do so.

That you mistake my post for an ad hominem attack speaks clearly about your inability to handle criticism against yourself. I can thus only conclude that you not only *appear* to be a hypocrite, but you actually *are* one.

I’m sure that you understand that I haven’t accused Assange of blackmail in a legal sense but I do question the ethics of demanding money for removing sensitive information with a threat to still publish them if the money is not paid. But ethics is not something that can be discussed with pirates in a meaningful way.

”But ethics is not something that can be discussed with pirates in a meaningful way.”

It’s correct that you personally apparently can’t.

Almost everyone else fortunately can, however.

The main problem is, of course, that you are by definition against anything and everything which stems from Piratpartiet in general (and Rick Falkvinge in particular, for some reason) no matter what the issue may be. With such a mindset on your behalf it follows that any intelligent and worthwhile discourse with you, for them, is infeasible and will lead nowhere but you being ignored.

And that’s unfortunate, since an *intelligent* and *honest* discourse with critics is a good and healthy thing!

Perhaps if you adjusted your approach just a little bit, you could accomplish some actual results, that would be beneficial for both yourself and the ones you criticize?

Wouldn’t that be something to strive for?

As a non-pirate myself, but nevertheless very interested in any constructive dialogue regarding these issues, I would sure see that as a step in the right direction. Wouldn’t you?

”The main problem is, of course, that you are by definition against anything and everything which stems from Piratpartiet in general (and Rick Falkvinge in particular, for some reason) no matter what the issue may be.”

By your definition, not by mine. I only criticize those parts of the politics that leads to a society that favors criminals and cheats instead of honest citizens.

I see. Fair enough. You don’t explicitly state anywhere that you criticize everything, but from reading what you write, that’s the general impression that emerges. Change ”by definition” into ”by observation” and the statement holds.

”I only criticize those parts of the politics that leads to a society that favors criminals and cheats instead of honest citizens.”

Nota bene: That’s according to *your* personal view of things, and not an objective observation. Others obviously disagree, and view things quite differently.

Yours is also quite an inflammatory stance, which will probably not foster any will from the pirate side to discuss things with you, since I suspect that almost nobody on the pirate side actually *wants* to favor ”criminals and cheats instead of honest citizens” in reality.

It’s quite comparable with someone accusing you of favoring a totalitarian and fascist society (where everyone is *forced* to be honest, whether such force is needed or not in each case) which I’m sure you’re actually not favoring at all.

You would probably do well in moderating your tone somewhat.

I’ve observed that you tend to portray most (if not all) pirate party supporters in a very general, and extremely negative light. Most likely undeservedly so, and definitely not conductive towards any kind of constructive discourse.

You are obviously free to take this as you wish, but just to be clear: My express purpose and intent is simply to hint at what you can do to better get your message across, if that is what you actually wish.

”Nota bene: That’s according to *your* personal view of things, and not an objective observation. ”

Why so much focus on me as a person? Try to focus on the issues being discussed instead. You’re really trying hard to disguise the fact that you’re only reverting to Ad homimen. You can really do better than this.

You are obviously free to take this as you wish, but just to be clear: My express purpose and intent is simply to hint at what you can do to better get your message across, if that is what you actually wish.

”’m sure that you understand that I haven’t accused Assange of blackmail in a legal sense but I do question the ethics of demanding money for removing sensitive information with a threat to still publish them if the money is not paid…”

You are stating that he demands money in exchange for removing sensitive information – that is an accusation of blackmail. Which is libel by any national standard. Provide the evidence for this ”fact” you seem so aware of, please, because if you are correct in your statement, Mr. Assange is guilty of extortion. If you are not correct in this you are guilty of libel. There is no middle ground there.

Which is interesting given that you seem to be quite sensitive to ad hominems yourself, even though you can’t seem to write a single sentence without launching one. The definition for that is called a ”double standard” – or ”hypocrisy” if you like.

”Reporter: Would you publish, for example, Tony Blairs medical journal? Since your mission is to reveal information of great political value, would it not be of interest for the public to know how the world leaders health condition are?

” It’s not a surprise that the Swedish Pirate Party supports publishing of sensitive information when it suits their purposes, integrity and anonomity is only required when it can be used to protect criminals such as pirates.”

If you are going to criticize The Pirate Party you should at least read through the information on their website first. The party wants to change the copyright laws so that “criminals such as pirates” no longer would be criminals. This in turn can in no way mean that the party tries to protect “criminals such as pirates” for the simple reason that it would not be illegal anymore. This is pretty simple logic, isn’t it?

“The Pirate Bay have also made a similar transition. According to the court sentence, they had at least an 1,2 MSEK income from advertising on their site, from 2005 to 2006, generated by piracy.”

Lies and lies. First of all The Pirate Bay wasn’t involved in piracy like you suggest and can for that reason alone not have earned 1.2 MSEK “by piracy” Secondly you seem to have a hard time choosing if The Pirate Bay generated this stated income “by piracy” OR from “advertising on their site”. Writing faster than you think today?

“By your definition, not by mine. I only criticize those parts of the politics that leads to a society that favors criminals and cheats instead of honest citizens.”

And yet you constantly and blindly defend laws that strike “honest citizens” badly.

Is it just me or is anyone else tired of reading nejtillpirater and his other nicks responses??
Last time he had 5 nicks and more or less trolled the entire forum at Rick Falkvinge. I guess he should use at least more IP-adresses this time around…….

It is the same thing all the freeking time. He hates The Pirateparty and says anything to discredit it even when faced with facts.

Are you actually nejtillpirater posting under a different alias, pretending to be someone else, for some reason? If so, that’s interesting. If not, then so be it.

There’s nothing odd, or contrary, about checking whether several different aliases are coming from the same ip address. It’s public information, and I doubt anyone is going to dig deeper, if checking at all.

Also, it’s your choice (and nejtillpirater’s, whether you’re the same poster or not) to come here and post. Nobody is forcing or requiring you to do so.

There are plenty of tools that can help you become strictly anonymous, if you wish. Tools that Piratpartiet, among others, support and endorse. Yes, even for you. I bet that fact might be a little hard for you to swallow, since it contradicts what you’re trying to say about them.

@ 61
Well I am surprised that I should need to be protected when discussing on the Pirates blogs. It should be in your DNA to respect the integrity of the individuals. But apperantly thats not the case.

And by the way, since app 99,5% of the Swedes is making an active decision to NOT vote for the Pirates (at least according to the latest polls) its hardly surprising that there are several individuals who are discussing against the pirate party.
It would have been more surprising if it had only been ”nejtillpirater”….

”Well I am surprised that I should need to be protected when discussing on the Pirates blogs. It should be in your DNA to respect the integrity of the individuals. But apperantly thats not the case.”

There is no need for you to be protected, unless you yourself find it necessary. There is the possibility for you to do so, in various ways, if you wish, for some reason. A possibility Piratpartiet, among others, is fighting for you to have, now and in the future.

”Present evidence to back up your claims before a court of law or start backpedalling fast.”

SDM, you must be joking, YOU are the master of accusations towards numerous individuals without ever presenting any claims before a court and now you insist that NTP should have to do the very thing YOU yourself never done.

Hey, give these poor people a break now. No need to rub it in their face, they are having a hard time. Poor pirates…

First one of their candidates to the parliament bails aout after driving a campaign to support having sex with children. By the way, a view he shares with another of the Pirats candidates to the parliament, Carl Johan Rehbinder.
This puts the pirates fight for child pornography in a new context.

If Julian Assange is indeed found guilty of rape, then of course he should be convicted for it, since it’s a very serious crime. If he is *not* found guilty, then he should *not* be convicted for it.

You are both apparently very eagerly assuming that he is guilty right from the start, which speaks clearly about your views of the justice process more than anything else.

Now, to the guilt-by-assocation attempt of you two:

This has nothing to do with the purpose, intent and work of Wikileaks.

Just as the fact that there exists criminals (convicted and otherwise) in every political party does not spill over and make the entire parties criminals, even if it was a high-ranking member, now does it?

Finally, Thomas, really … re-read what you wrote and think carefully about it. That kind of ”argument” makes even me, not even *being* a pirate, physically sick. You should be ashamed of yourself. Really.

That’s what your arguments boil down to, isn’t it? Baseless slander and a case for abolishing the pillars of a democratic society? Badly hidden behind a word wall meant to convince the common reader that everyone who is a pirate or associated with the pirate party is a sex offender of some sort?

That’s just pathetic. By your argumentation a simple accusation should be enough to invalidate any and every political movement that ever arose. Want to know how many crimes Martin Luther King Jr. was accused of? Including (surprise surprise) sexual offenses of every stripe. Gandhi? Whenever a person makes waves in politics there’s always one or more ordinary citizens who disagree with what that person is doing to such an extent that they willingly use whatever slander or legal instrument available to attack him with.

Unlike you I still have some faith in the basic practice of law which states that a man should and must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Were it not so, no one who ever made a political statement guaranteed to piss at least one person off would go free. An accusation does not confer guilt. Even less guilt-by-association.

What is more, unless we credit the man who started and administers wikileaks with frigtheningly low IQ, anyone with the capacity to knock two brain cells of their own together should by rights ask themselves why a man who knows he is followed closely by two or three governments, several private interests, and who literally has media hanging outside his hotel windows 24 hours a day would be dumb enough to land in Sweden and within a few days start looking for rape material. There is ample reason for doubt when it comes to criminal accusations suddenly appearing under those circumstances. As there should be.

If on the other hand Assange was dumb enough to actually do such a thing (twice!) then Wikileaks will no doubt be better off – as will the Pirate Party – by his absence. Which will in time strengthen both organizations.

” @ DanielS
Is that the ususal respect for the integrity that pirates are showing participants in open discussion forums? Checking the IP adresses?”

If you are going to ban someone from your own blog you better make sure you check which IP-addresses this person have used. In fact, to ban a person you must check the IP-addresses. Are you for real?

“Well I am surprised that I should need to be protected when discussing on the Pirates blogs. It should be in your DNA to respect the integrity of the individuals. But apperantly thats not the case.”

Read above.

” And by the way, since app 99,5% of the Swedes is making an active decision to NOT vote for the Pirates (at least according to the latest polls) its hardly surprising that there are several individuals who are discussing against the pirate party.
It would have been more surprising if it had only been ”nejtillpirater”….”

Stop the lie factory. The polls don’t show what people don’t want to vote on. Your credibility has now got higher density then water. How would it be to at least try and debate in an honest way?

Slander, you say.
Facts, I would claim.
Or is it not correct that Dick Wase just bailed out from the Pirates? And that the reason was that his ”very liberal” view on children and sex was a bit too liberal, even for the pirates?
And is it not a fact that another of your candidates to the parliament, Carl Johan Rehbinder also has a very liberal attitude towards children and sex?
Is it not also the case that one of your members, running for a local goverment in Western Sweden was convicted last week for child abuse?

Does this in any way imply that every Pirate is a child abuser. Of course not!
And I have not claimed that in any way! I have not even claimed that there would be more common with child abusers in the Pirate Party, than anywhere else. That would be a very stupid and a very ignorant accusation!

However, given the facts that there are at least three individuals, that have been appointed for places in the government, that all share a very liberal view on having sex with children, I would say that it puts the Pirate Party’s fight for less restrictions on child pornography in another context.

The fact that Julian Assange is accused for rape – is also no more than a fact. And neither I, nor Nejtillpirater, has in any way claimed that he is guilty or even discussed any potential consequences for the Pirate party or Wikileaks.

I can understand that you are touchy today, its been a tough day for you pirates. Lots of bad news….
But please dont make any accusations, where there aren’t any to make.
OK?

@ Kras – No 74
Perhaps you could try to use some logic.
When I decide to vote for a party, I also make a decision to not vote for other parties. OK? The logic behind that is fairly simple….

”And neither I, nor Nejtillpirater, has in any way claimed that he is guilty or even discussed any potential consequences for the Pirate party or Wikileaks.”

The wordings in the posts of both of you obviously disagree.

”I can understand that you are touchy today, its been a tough day for you pirates. Lots of bad news….”

So a ”tough day” with ”lots of bad news” is not even a potential consequence? Your logic is flawed. If there weren’t any potential consequences for PP, then why would these news be ”bad news” and lead to a ”tough day”? Of *course* it’s problematic, and of *course* you know that, and of *course* it’s part of why you’re posting about it. You could at least be honest about it, since it’s so utterly transparent.

Oh, well. We’ll just have to see how this plays out, won’t we? The timing of it all, and some (most?) of the circumstances are quite peculiar.

“@ Kras – No 74
Perhaps you could try to use some logic. When I decide to vote for a party, I also make a decision to not vote for other parties. OK? The logic behind that is fairly simple….”

You missed the point. When you vote you make an active decision to vote for the party that best suits your views. The same applies when you answer the polls about which party you want to vote for. You don’t vote on or choose the party that you don’t want elected or that you don’t sympathize with, or like DanielS put it, “(…)since app 99,5% of the Swedes is making an active decision to NOT vote for the Pirates(…)”. The active decision lies in prioritizing and choosing one party over the rest, not to vote for the exclusion of a specific party. The exclusion of other parties is an indirect effect of the choice and can’t justify reversing the meaning of polls in order to create a misleading statement to support ones arguments. Surely this can be debated, but the main point is that the way DanielS tries to use the polls don’t add weight to his arguments. It’s misleading at the best.

Great🙂 It seems that we are getting somewhere now!
Since you apperantly agree that the news yesterday was not in the interest of the Pirates (before the latest news from Eva Finne), we should agree on that my statement was accurate? About a tough day for the pirates?

Glad that we sorted that out🙂

Perhaps we can get back to the original issue, with the same laser sharp and focused reasoning?

When Wikileak is publishing their 90000 documents, they are also disclosing private information about a large number of individuals. These individuals are both military personell from all over the world, on a UN mission. And also Afghan individuals, that may or may not be working together with the legal government in Afghanistan.

To disclose this private information is a major breach to the integrity of these individuals! And a major blow on their right to be anonymous.

The decision to publish this information on the net, is done by Wikileaks. Without any transparency or any reasoning. Without an political or legal responsibility.

The purpose of the cooperation between PP and Wikileak is to enable Wikileak to publish this kind of information. And to provide Wikileak with the political support from a Swedish political party, thus using the support of the Swedish government.

By enabling Wikileaks publishing of private information about a large number of individuals, the Pirate Party is participating in breaching the right of their integrity.
A direct contradicition to what PP claims to be the core values in theit politics and also the core values of a democracy.

So this is not about Wikileaks, its not about the war in Afghanistan and its not about the social skills of Julian Assange. Its only about the fact that the Pirates are now breaching the personal integrity for a large number of individuals!
In direct contradiction to their core values!

”But it is not as good to you in this situation is as transparent as possible?
– Yes, but I do not want to drag people’s private lives in the dirt without having the whole situation is clear for me. Why do they turn to the police? What lies behind?
– What I can say is that I never, either in Sweden or in any other country, had sex with someone in a way that is not built on total voluntary from both sides.”

Assange doesn’t want to drag peoples’s private lives in the dirt without having the whole situation clear. But obviously only when it concerns himself, not when 90 000 documents are published on wikileaks.

”Since you apperantly agree that the news yesterday was not in the interest of the Pirates (before the latest news from Eva Finne), we should agree on that my statement was accurate? About a tough day for the pirates?”

Due to the continuous attempts at guilt-by-association by you and others like you (nejtillpirater, primarily) it at least was an *annoying* day for the pirates, yes. (Remember that *I* am not a pirate. I’m just observing the fanatic anti-pirate rhetoric.)

”Glad that we sorted that out :-)”

We didn’t. Well, *you* didn’t.

”Perhaps we can get back to the original issue, with the same laser sharp and focused reasoning?”

Thank you.

And yes, why don’t we. Thus, I refer you to my comment #71, directed at you, where everything you now pretend to have come up with yourself has been initiated already.

You apparently never read, or at least didn’t comprehend it, so please try again, and a bit harder this time. And really, try not to make the mistake this time in assuming that I’m categorically against any military operations in Afghanistan. If you think/propose that, then you haven’t yet understood.

”Assange doesn’t want to drag peoples’s private lives in the dirt without having the whole situation clear. But obviously only when it concerns himself, not when 90 000 documents are published on wikileaks.”

As has been stated by many before, there is a world of difference about reporting criminal activities intentionally covered up in a war, and exposing single people in an ordinary society outside of a war.

According to the same categorization of ”It’s ok to place cameras in a subway, but not to monitor people all the time without a good and valid reason”.
There are nuances here, and once again all you really care about is to marginalize any person or organization approved of by the Pirate Party and nothing else.

I recall with perfect clarity your supreme disinterest in Wikileaks publications up until the very moment when the pirate party voiced approval – at which time you became a sworn adversary of the entire wikileaks phenomenon. As you have done in the past a number of times.

Apperantly I have failed to make my point clear and simple enough. Please let me try again.

Once again, this has nothing to do with Wikileaks mission or the war in Afghanistan!

The problem is that the information that Wikileak is publishing, regardless of the democratic value, is full of personal and private information on a large number of individuals. Not only war criminals as SDM is claiming, but ordinary people. Like you, me and the rest of us. Not charged with any crimes, not even suspected.
Individuals that may or may not have cooperated with the legal government.
When Wikileak is publishing this information, it is a part of an overall crusade for democracy. So the collateral damage to breach these individuals right to be anonymous on the net, is an ok price to pay. A fair argument for Wikileak.

But when the Pirates now are enabling the publishing of this information its in a different context. One of the core values of the Pirate party is to protect the private integrity and the right to be anonymous on the net.
The first sentence in the presentation states:
”The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected.”

So the ”citizens right to privacy” is a key value for the pirates. One of the fundamental drivers for the party.
And still, by enabling the publishing of information from Wikileak, the party is breaching the right for ”citizens right to privacy”.
That is the fundamental problem for the Pirate Party! You have eroded the core value of the party! Eroded the fundamental right for the Pirate Party itself.

”The problem is that the information that Wikileak is publishing, regardless of the democratic value, is full of personal and private information on a large number of individuals.”

Personal and private information on a large number of individuals, you say. Name at least one such individual, and cite sources where a large number is referenced and can be verified. It would be nice to have that information at hand, going forward.

Then, to the core of your argument:

You apparently want to focus strictly on some personal information being made public, while at the same time completely ignoring the context in which this is taking place.

And that’s where you go wrong.

Since this happens early in your argument – it even forms the entire basis for it – the rest of your tirade is derailed from the start. You can’t base your conclusion upon a faulty premise and make it sound. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

Continuing with: Nobody is denying that the publication might become a problem for those individuals who are explicitly named and identifiable. Exactly who they are, how many they are, and in what position they might currently be, is of course relevant when assessing the seriousness for them, on a person-by-person basis.

Do you have any such information? At all?

Then, to the three words:

The world is not black and white, and neither is this discussion. Things, decisions, actions and considerations must always be considered in light of the context(s) in which they take place.

There are things that are more right than they are wrong, rather than completely right or wrong, and the opposite. There are things, that when taken solely on their own, appear to be completely wrong, but when viewed in their actual context, are not at all as clear-cut any longer.

The publication of the Afghan War Diary is an excellent example of this.

Yes, the publication can potentially cause problems for individuals. Yes, the non-publication can also potentially cause problems for individuals. How do you make the choice? How do you take responsibility for the choice, regardless of which it is?

The personal information in the Afghan War Diary does not constitute wide-spread eavesdropping on the whole populace in a functioning democratic country, as you should be well aware. The country is at war. The personal information covers a select number of individuals, the exact count I dare you, or anyone, to produce a reliable figure for. I sure as hell haven’t seen one yet. Have you? Anyone? Where?

The situations, circumstances and context are vastly different, and those differences by definition affects what constitutes acceptable publication and what does not.

To summarize:

– There is a huge difference between wide-spread surveillance and eavesdropping on regular people in a regular country, going about their regular lives, and the reporting of information that war-waging countries are withholding from their own citizens, even *if* that information happens to include personal information about a limited number of people.

– You cannot, while remaining intellectually honest, ignore the context in which events are taking place.

– Most decisions in the world are not completely black or white. Sometimes you have to make a decision you might not like, simply because the alternative is just so much worse. Pretending otherwise is, again, intellectually dishonest.

And, to finish off an already too long post:

”Was this clear enough?”

I have understood your point from the first time you made it. The problem we have is that *you* apparently haven’t understood *my* point yet. Until you do, we will probably not make very little progress in this discussion.

I think I can see where you are struggling…..
First, according to several independent, local humanitarian organisations there is indeed a large number of individuals that has had personal and private information disclosed. And would you not agree that it is reasonable to believe that there is this kind of information in the massive amount of documents? After all, Wikileak claims to have a total of 1.2 million documents….
And even Wikileak admits this risk, in an interview Daniel Schmitt from Wikileak says its an obvious risk. He continues:
”Every piece of information you publish has the possibility that someone might be harmed. I’m not saying this is an easy thing or that we don’t care about this. I don’t want to give the wrong impression there, but on the other hand, that is something we have to be honest about.”http://www.thelocal.de/society/20100730-28855.html
Wikileak is aware of this obvious risk, perhaps you should aknowledge the risk as well?

Black, white or grey?
For you, me and for Wikileak there are shades of grey in regards to ”citizens right to privacy”. But for the Pirate Party there is only black or white.
The right to privacy is their first portal paragraph, its the foundation for their politics. PP wants to fight crime, which is what Wikileak is doing, with respect for private integrity and in a way that does not violate the privacy of innocent people. Its a very strong statement about the protection of the individuals.
At the end their portal page about integrity the write: (my translation)
”When a politician or others, tries to remove the right for you to be anonymous, you know whats going on” And this is just what this is about – removing the right to be anonymous. This right is currently being removed by the Pirate politician.

For the Pirates, there are no shades of grey! ”citizens right to privacy” is more important than anything else! You can read it all over their website in different contexts. ”citizens right to privacy” is about respect for the constitution and democracy. No shades of grey!

”And would you not agree that it is reasonable to believe that there is this kind of information in the massive amount of documents?”

Belief and fact are different things. In matters as complicated as these, it’s (much) better to have at least *some* facts to base a constructive discussion upon, wouldn’t *you* agree?

”And even Wikileak admits this risk, in an interview Daniel Schmitt from Wikileak says its an obvious risk.”

Where have I (or anyone, really) *ever* denied that there is a risk? Exactly. Nowhere, as far as I’ve seen. Discussed various *degrees* of risk, definitely, but denied its existence? No.

”For you, me and for Wikileak there are shades of grey in regards to ”citizens right to privacy”.”

Very true.

(It’s ”Wikileaks”, or even ”WikiLeaks”, with an ‘s’. I know it’s a small detail, but details like that bug me, when discussing serious things such as this. Don’t take it the wrong way, please.)

”But for the Pirate Party there is only black or white.”

This is where I think the core of the issue is, for you.

You see, I believe that you are *wrong* in your assumption/interpretation of what the Pirate Party actually stands for. May I suggest that you ask this very specific question to the Pirate Party themselves, instead of assuming what I personally think is not actually the case?

The final paragraph hinges solely on this assumption of yours being true, so I won’t comment on it any further, except for reiterating that I think you might just be wrong on this one, and that the view of the Pirate Party regarding these issues is, in fact, more nuanced than you currently think.

You should never presume that your fellow man is evil.

Give them the benefit of doubt, ask the question, listen to (or read) the answer, and ponder it. You might be pleasantly surprised. We’ll see, I guess.

Well, to me its enough that a number of local humanitarian organisations claims that it is a problem that private information is disclosed. And that this information has proven to be lethal for these individual.

”May I suggest that you ask this very specific question to the Pirate Party themselves, instead of assuming what I personally think is not actually the case?”
Well – it was kind of the reason that I posted the question at this blog.
I was expecting/hoping to get an answer from Mr Engström, the blogowner.
Same thing, I posted the same question at the Pirate Party’s blog.
Without any specific or clear answers….

”Well, to me its enough that a number of local humanitarian organisations claims that it is a problem that private information is disclosed. And that this information has proven to be lethal for these individual.”

As far as I know, exactly zero people have so far been reported as having encountered any actual problems due to the publication of the Afghan War Diary. Where can I find information outlining that it ”has proven to be lethal”? If I’ve missed it, I’d sure like to know about it, as well as update my list of sources. Any verifiable pointers?

I think you stand a (much) better chance of getting a proper response if you send your question(s) directly (preferably via email) to a select few individuals, rather than posting it/them in the comment sections. As you are no doubt well aware, those tend to be trolled and flamed to pieces…

Sure, if I sent a mail I would perhaps receive a reply.
On the other hand, now we can all share the discussions and all share the information. Unfortunately we cannot share any replies, since there has not been any…

About facts.
As I said once or twice, a number of local humanitarian organisations claims that the publicity is a lethal threat to a large number of individuals and their families. This is enough for me, I have no reason to have any doubts of the knowledge and integrity of these groups. Perhaps you have better sources, claiming the opposite or better local knowledge?
But for me, I trust these organsations!

Well, if you *want* a thoughtful response, I’d still suggest that you send the question directly. You could always share the response wherever you wish, after you’ve received it. Your call, obviously.🙂

Yeah, about facts. I know what you’re referring to, and I understand where you stand. Those references are a bit too much of second/third-hand opinion to *me*, rather than verifiable facts. I am a sucker for hard facts that I can verify myself, directly or indirectly, and *especially* so in such hotly debated issues as these. I am sure you can respect that, just as I can respect your position, which I do.

The only real hard fact I can rely on at this time, is the fact that no *actual* incidents have been reported so far, involving any people allegedly named in the documents. To my knowledge. Counter examples are welcome, obviously.

As a matter of fact, I haven’t seen any reliable source so far having even confirmed that there *are* any people named in the documents, who are not already deceased, out of the area, or otherwise not potential targets for retributions.

As you probably know by now, I am really quite easily convinced. The ”only” condition is that I am presented with facts that I can verify as true. I get seriously annoyed with people presenting opinion as fact. Very different things, indeed.🙂 (I am primarily thinking of certain other people, as examples of this behavior.) Presenting opinion as just that, is of course no problem.

The constant quest for facts can sometimes cloud the sight of the truth. Facts can be so illusive.
Like Quijote, always probing deeper and deeper – and still not finding the truth.
Perhaps more philosophical than I wanted. And perhaps a deep discussion of ”facts” is outside the scope of this discussion?

Wall Street Journal is supposed to be trustworthy. Perhaps this link can be of interest. Especially two quotes:
”We have seen the negative, sometimes deadly ramifications for those Afghans identified as working for or sympathizing with international forces”
”Taliban representatives have said publicly that they are searching the documents and plan to punish people who have helped U.S. forces.”

Is this a ”fact” meaning that we have dead body and a Taliban claiming the kill, confessing that the information was solely from a Wikileaks leak? Nope… and if that is the level of ”fact” you need, sorry?

” To disclose this private information is a major breach to the integrity of these individuals! And a major blow on their right to be anonymous.”

Do you believe in a total and unbreachable integrity?

“By enabling Wikileaks publishing of private information about a large number of individuals, the Pirate Party is participating in breaching the right of their integrity.
A direct contradicition to what PP claims to be the core values in theit politics and also the core values of a democracy.”

The fact that we still allow and protect whistleblowers in our societies is because of the tremendous value they bring to democracies. PP is on contrary to what you try to depict very open with the support of whistleblowers and have never stated or believed there would be any sort of total or unbreachable integrity for everyone.

“So this is not about Wikileaks, its not about the war in Afghanistan and its not about the social skills of Julian Assange. Its only about the fact that the Pirates are now breaching the personal integrity for a large number of individuals!
In direct contradiction to their core values!”

It’s not about Wikileaks? How could that be when your problem seems to be PP supporting this organization? And stop using phrases like “the Pirates are now breaching the personal integrity for a large number of individuals” If you want to make a point be specific and please use terms that reflects it. But perhaps that was the loosest and most emotion filled term you could find? Anyway. The Pirate Party is now “breaching the personal integrity for a large number of individuals” just like Telia?

@ nejtillpirater

“Assange doesn’t want to drag peoples’s private lives in the dirt without having the whole situation clear. But obviously only when it concerns himself, not when 90 000 documents are published on wikileaks.”

Are you always scanning through any news article you can get your hands on in order to try and find the slightest thing that can be reversed and remarked on in order to fabricate some strange kind of mixture between emotion-based and subjective arguments that won’t hold for scrutiny? But you are more than welcome to explain why these two completely different, in just about every aspect, events can or should be treated as equals?

“But when the Pirates now are enabling the publishing of this information its in a different context. One of the core values of the Pirate party is to protect the private integrity and the right to be anonymous on the net.
The first sentence in the presentation states:
”The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected.””

The citizens’ right to privacy includes protection from the state for an example. But it doesn’t automatically cover everything. When whistleblowers leaks information that reveals the truth about something important it can be more than justified that some persons’ integrity is breached. You stated yourself that it “is an ok price to pay” regarding Wikileaks breach of the integrity. But when PP shows their support for the democracy-aiding organization there is suddenly something wrong.

“So the ”citizens right to privacy” is a key value for the pirates. One of the fundamental drivers for the party. And still, by enabling the publishing of information from Wikileak, the party is breaching the right for ”citizens right to privacy”.
That is the fundamental problem for the Pirate Party! You have eroded the core value of the party! Eroded the fundamental right for the Pirate Party itself.”

No they are not. Citizens don’t have any rights to a total and unbreachable privacy in all ways. It doesn’t help your cause by taking a loosely formulated phrase, putting your own definition on it, and with that try and declare the party’s fundamental right to exist as eroded.

“Was this clear enough?”

It’s clear what you are trying to do, but not why you think it would work.

“Wikileak is aware of this obvious risk, perhaps you should aknowledge the risk as well?”

He just did in the very comment that you responded to. Do I have to quote it for you or should I let you read through his post again? I lean to the latter.

“For you, me and for Wikileak there are shades of grey in regards to ”citizens right to privacy”. But for the Pirate Party there is only black or white.
The right to privacy is their first portal paragraph, its the foundation for their politics. PP wants to fight crime, which is what Wikileak is doing, with respect for private integrity and in a way that does not violate the privacy of innocent people. Its a very strong statement about the protection of the individuals.”

Only black or white? Have you ever seen the party wrote or in any other way stated that they believe in a total and unquestionable right to privacy? If you answer yes and can back it up with something concrete then you might have a case for your statement. If not then you will sooner or later have to admit that even The Pirate Party’s world is not black and white. If you want to know what the party wants to accomplish you have to read more in to it than one loosely formulated phrase.

“At the end their portal page about integrity the write: (my translation)
”When a politician or others, tries to remove the right for you to be anonymous, you know whats going on” And this is just what this is about – removing the right to be anonymous. This right is currently being removed by the Pirate politician.”

Then you will have to give the text in Swedish too, since I can’t find that on the page that you stated. And that by reading on all places where the words politician and anonymous shows up.

“For the Pirates, there are no shades of grey! ”citizens right to privacy” is more important than anything else! You can read it all over their website in different contexts. ”citizens right to privacy” is about respect for the constitution and democracy. No shades of grey!”

In different contexts? Didn’t you say that it was just black or white? Suddenly there are contexts and colors… Oh my.

“Well, to me its enough that a number of local humanitarian organisations claims that it is a problem that private information is disclosed. And that this information has proven to be lethal for these individual.”

They raised their concerns about the private information while still giving Wikileaks as an organization their support. These organizations, people on this blog, and The Pirate Party is all aware of that this information has the potential to be harmful in some cases. But it’s enough for you that some humanitarian organizations have the same concerns like so many others?